Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
132.00 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:55 PM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
128.00 ₪ - 141.80 ₪
52-Week Range
65.09 ₪ - 167.00 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
106.50 ₪
Resistance
167.00 ₪
RMON.TA is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+137.0% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 6/13 factors positiveRisk: High
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 200
Price is above the 200-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.0% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
RMON.TA exhibits a **moderate overall score of 51**, reflecting a mixed technical and risk profile with relatively muted news sentiment. The technical indicators show a **divided but cautiously optimistic** picture: while the stock sits above its 200-day average and displays positive momentum (MACD, RSI, ROC), it remains below its 50-day average—a short-term drag. The **overbought %K (95.8)** suggests potential near-term consolidation, though the **strong uptrend (ADX 35.2)** and **rising momentum** (ROC 10.4%) indicate underlying strength. Risk metrics are a concern, with a **high ATR (6.2%)** and a **Calmar ratio of 1.81**, highlighting volatility and a significant historical drawdown (31.7%) despite a high annualized return (57.6%). News sentiment remains neutral, with no recent data to influence the score. The balance between **momentum-driven gains and volatility risks** defines the current outlook.
The stock shows **positive momentum (MACD, RSI, ROC) and an uptrend (above 200-day average, SAR point)**, but it is **below its 50-day average and overbought (%K 95.8)**, signaling potential short-term pressure.
This duality—strong long-term momentum but near-term overbought conditions—creates a **cautionary yet bullish** technical environment.
No recent news or sentiment data is available to assess market perception or external catalysts for RMON.TA.
Lack of news data means the score relies entirely on **technical and risk factors**, leaving sentiment-driven shifts unaccounted for.
The stock exhibits **high volatility (ATR 6.2%)** and a **historically volatile return profile (Calmar 1.81, 31.7% max drawdown)**, despite a strong 57.6% annualized return.
These metrics suggest **potential for sharp corrections**, which could outweigh short-term gains for risk-averse investors.
StockIQ conclusion
RMON.TA presents a **technically mixed but cautiously optimistic** profile, with **strong long-term momentum** counterbalanced by **short-term overbought conditions and elevated volatility**. While indicators like the MACD, RSI, and ROC suggest **underlying bullishness**, concerns around volatility (ATR, Calmar) and near-term overbought risks create a **moderate risk-reward dynamic**. Investors should monitor whether the stock **breaks above the 50-day average** or receives **positive news catalysts** to confirm sustained strength, as current data leaves room for both **consolidation and volatility-driven corrections**.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
58
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
65
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING RMON.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
—
Technical
65
Valuation
—
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+0%
Market Narrative
48
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-2
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here suggests a **passive herding dynamic**—participants are loosely aligning with sector peers but not aggressively chasing gains. The narrative gap (6-point divergence) hints at potential misalignment between market expectations and fundamentals, though momentum and neutral sentiment keep euphoria in check. The key question is whether the underperformance relative to peers signals a lagging trend or a divergence worth investigating. Without extreme volatility or volume spikes, panic or FOMO remain dormant, leaving herding as the dominant but subdued force. The 17.6% distance from support may also dampen anchoring effects, keeping traders neutral rather than defensive.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 12:51 AM
What could change this?
📈 8D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Charles Mackay — 82/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some investors seeing cautious opportunity while others flag it as a high-risk proposition. Charles Mackay’s high score suggests no obvious signs of crowd mania, implying a relatively stable market sentiment, whereas Gerald M. Loeb and Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s low scores warn of overbought conditions and excessive risk—highlighting a stark contrast between perceived stability and cyclical overreach. Howard Marks’ neutral stance (early-to-mid cycle) contrasts sharply with Morgan Housel’s outright rejection, as the latter’s zero score reflects extreme volatility that would likely unsettle patient investors. Meanwhile, the lack of definitive data for Graham, Fisher, or Lynch leaves their verdicts inconclusive, while Jesse Livermore’s neutral stance and Jack Schwager’s indecision further muddle the picture, suggesting this stock lacks clear technical or fundamental momentum. The efficient-market camp’s lukewarm approval underscores that even its advocates see little edge over passive investing.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 82
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 71
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 63
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 52
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Not enough growth/insider data for a real Veblen read
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 45
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 38
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 26
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 255 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 3 bearish · 2 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.6.2024 | 91.342 ₪ |
| 3.6.2024 | 91.342 ₪ |
| 4.4.2023 | 71.449 ₪ |
| 3.4.2023 | 71.449 ₪ |
| 10.4.2022 | 42.112 ₪ |
| 9.4.2022 | 42.112 ₪ |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Rimon Solar Ltd (RMON.TA) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for RMON.TA specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
RMON.TA's technical score is 65/100, which currently reads as bullish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is above the 200-day average; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; +3.9% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.0% of price; Price is below the 50-day average; CMF 20 days: -0.15.
Yes — RMON.TA has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology